4 ms·
Devil’s advocate, just because YOU choose to break the browsing experience for yourself doesn’t mean anyone else should have to adhere to that.
by sentientslug 2y ago
Devil’s advocate, just because YOU choose to break the browsing experience for yourself doesn’t mean anyone else should have to adhere to that.
- MrVandemar 2y agohttps://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-simple-html/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThere are people who might access the web with screenreaders and other affordances who also suffer broken experience due to js religious like adherence. Should we tell them sorry, the internet is for the able bodied, or do we make affordances for the disabled like we do in the physical world?
- sentientslug 2y agoI'm really growing tired of this pseudo-argument. Please have a read: https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/people-who-use-screen-readers-dont-use-javascript/ https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/people-who-use-screen-read...
- MrVandemar 2y agoIt is about accessibility, though not necessarily screen-readers. I live in a rural area and, aside from the tracking shit they cram in, mountains of Javascript (and CSS) materially affect my ability to connect, browse and communicate. Accessibility is also about where you live, and we don't all live in cities. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Simple HTML: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-simple-html/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]